Pesachim 79a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara now returns to Rav’s statement at the beginning of the discussion. He said: If the meat became impure while the sacrificial fats remain, as our Mishna states, he should not sprinkle the blood; nevertheless, if he sprinkled it, it renders the offering acceptable. We challenged this: Is eating not required?!

Alternatively, one can say

and we answer this objection:

Rav—

who holds that if one sprinkled the blood, the offering is acceptable even though the meat became impure and is unfit to be eaten—

holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who holds that eating the Paschal offering does not prevent its acceptance.

For

this is

taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says:

With regard to all offerings in the Torah, whether the meat became impure while the sacrificial fats remain, or the sacrificial fats became impure while the meat remains, one sprinkles the blood.

But

a nazirite—

who, when his period of nazirite separation is complete, brings, among his other offerings, one ram as a peace-offering, cooks it in the Temple courtyard, and after shaving his head places his hair beneath the pot in which the peace-offering is being cooked; the priest takes the cooked foreleg of the ram and waves it before the Lord—

and

so too

one who offers the Paschal offering,

whose primary purpose is eating, have a different law:

1.

If the sacrificial fats became impure while the meat remains,

he

sprinkles the blood

as with other offerings; but

if the meat became impure and

even if

the sacrificial fats remain, he should not sprinkle the blood; and if he sprinkled it, the offering is accepted.

The reason that the nazirite’s peace-offerings also differ from other offerings is that the nazirite’s peace-offering “is initially intended for eating, since he must place his hair beneath the pot in which the peace-offering is cooked, and he must also perform the waving of the cooked foreleg. Thus, it is evident that the meat must be pure at the time of the sprinkling, so that it will be fit for the mitzva associated with it”;

nevertheless, if he sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted, since these requirements do not prevent acceptance [Rashi; Tosafot disagree with all of this and do not have the word “nazirite” at all].

2.

If the owners became impure through contact with a corpse,

he

should not sprinkle

the blood, unlike other offerings, for which an impure person sends his offerings.

And if he sprinkled it, the offering is not accepted.

The reason regarding the Paschal offering is that although, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, eating the Paschal offering does not prevent acceptance, “we require a person who is fit to eat, and the Torah sent one who became impure through contact with a corpse to the Second Pesaḥ” [Rashi].

The reason regarding the nazirite is that “with regard to a nazirite as well, it is written: ‘If a person dies suddenly beside him...,’ which invalidates his nazirite separation” [Rashi].

We have therefore learned that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, eating the Paschal offering does not prevent acceptance. Accordingly, he holds that even though the meat became impure and is unfit to be eaten, if one sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted, as Rav said.

We learned in the Mishna: And

with regard to consecrated offerings, this is not so,

but even though the meat became impure while the sacrificial fats remain, one sprinkles the blood:

And we explain:

Whose opinion is reflected in the Mishna? It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all offerings in the Torah from which an olive-bulk of meat remains

for human consumption,

or an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat remains

for consumption on the altar, he

sprinkles the blood.

But if

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat remain, he should not sprinkle the blood,

because human consumption and consumption on the altar do not combine to form the required measure.

And with regard to a burnt-offering,

which is entirely burned on the altar,

even if half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of sacrificial fat remain,

he

sprinkles the blood, because it is entirely burned,

and in this case there is only consumption on the altar.

But with regard to a meal-offering, even if it is entirely intact, he should not sprinkle

the blood; and the Gemara proceeds to explain this statement.

We ask: But

what function could a meal-offering have

in relation to the sprinkling of blood? [What connection is there between sprinkling blood and meal-offerings?]

He said—

explaining—

Rav Pappa: “The meal-offering” mentioned in the beraita does not refer to a meal-offering brought independently, but to

a meal offering accompanying libations,

a libation meal-offering

brought together with an animal-offering. The beraita teaches that even though the meal-offering accompanying the animal-offering remains intact, that alone is insufficient to permit sprinkling the blood over it if the meat and sacrificial fats of the animal-offering became impure.

The innovation of the beraita is that

it might have entered your mind to say: Since it comes by virtue of the animal-offering,

because the animal-offering obligates one to bring a libation meal-offering with it,

it is considered like the body of the animal-offering

and the meal-offering should take the place of the meat, as though some meat had remained [Rashi, Menachot 26a];

therefore, it teaches us otherwise.

The Gemara now explains the main point of Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement: If the sacrificial fat designated for consumption on the altar remains, then even though the meat designated for human consumption does not remain, one sprinkles the blood:

We ask: Rabbi Yehoshua’s basic ruling, that the meat must remain in the case of peace-offerings, is derived above [77b] from the verse: “And he shall pour out the blood of your offerings, and you shall eat the meat.” Accordingly, we should learn that whenever the meat does not remain for eating, one does not sprinkle the blood. But that

sacrificial fat

is sufficient for sprinkling the blood—

from where do we know this?!

He said—

explaining—

Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and some attributed it

and there were those who would say that Rabbi Yoḥanan stated it

in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya]:

The verse says: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

and he shall burn the sacrificial fat for a pleasing fragrance to the Lord”

;

we learn from this that the priest sprinkles the blood if only

sacrificial fat

remains,

even though there is no meat

for human consumption.

We have found

that

sacrificial fat is sufficient. But what about the other sacrificial parts, namely,

And we explain:

the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys—from where do we know

that they are sufficient for sprinkling the blood over them, and that they too are sufficient, as the Gemara proceeds to explain?

And we explain:

Where do we say that one sprinkles,

that is, where is it written that according to Rabbi Yehoshua the other sacrificial parts are also sufficient for sprinkling the blood over them, so that we ask where this law comes from? His statement mentioned only sacrificial fat.

And we answer: This is demonstrated by the earlier beraita,

since it teaches: “And with regard to a meal-offering”

—a libation meal-offering brought together with the animal-offering, which is burned on the altar like the sacrificial parts of the offering—

“even if it is entirely intact, he should not sprinkle”;

from here we learn that only

a meal-offering

of libations, which is not part of the body of the animal-offering,

is not

considered what remains;

but the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys,

which are part of the body of the animal-offering,

are certainly suitable

to be considered what remains, so that one may sprinkle the blood over them.

The Gemara returns to its question: But

from where do we know this?!

Rabbi Yoḥanan himself—

and not in the name of his teachers, as above—

said

to explain:

When

the verse says:

“And he shall burn the sacrificial fat”

“for a pleasing fragrance,”

you sprinkle the blood over it, as stated above. We therefore learn:

Anything that you place on the altar for a pleasing fragrance

is considered what remains, so that one may sprinkle the blood over it.

And we explain:

It was necessary

for the verse

to write

“sacrificial fat”,

which is considered what remains;

and it was necessary

for the verse

to write also

“for”

“a pleasing fragrance,”

in order to teach that the other sacrificial parts are also considered what remains.

For had the Merciful One written only

“sacrificial fat,”

alone,

I would have said: “Sacrificial fat, yes,”

it is indeed considered what remains, but

“the diaphragm of the liver and the two kidneys, no”;

they would not be considered what remains. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

“for a pleasing fragrance,”

in order to include them as well.

And had the Merciful One written only

“for a pleasing fragrance”

alone,

I would have said: Everything placed on the altar for a pleasing fragrance

is considered what remains,

even a meal-offering

of libations brought with the animal-offering and placed on the altar for a pleasing fragrance. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote

“sacrificial fat,”

to teach you that something is considered what remains only when it resembles sacrificial fat, which is part of the body of the animal-offering, but not a libation meal-offering.

Mishna:

a. In the introduction to the Mishna on page 76b, it was explained that although the Paschal offering is an offering with a fixed time, and by law it should override impurity, the law of the Paschal offering is different: it does not override impurity. Rather, its owners are deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

It was further explained there that although other offerings may be brought when their owners are impure, the Paschal offering differs from other offerings in this regard: it is not brought in a state of impurity of its owners; rather, they are deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

b. However, all this applies only to the impurity of an individual.

But if the majority of the public needed to override impurity, impurity is overridden.

For the Torah says: “If any person becomes impure through contact with a corpse and offers the Pesaḥ to the Lord in the second month,” and the Sages received the tradition that an individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, but the public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

c. With regard to other communal offerings, although impurity is overridden only with regard to offering them in a state of impurity, and not with regard to eating the meat of the offering while the person or the meat is impure, in the case of the Paschal offering eating in a state of impurity is also permitted. This is because the Paschal offering is primarily intended for eating [provided that the owners were already impure at the time of the offering and the offering was performed in a state of impurity]. This law was already explained above.

c. The parameters of overriding impurity for a communal Paschal offering are the same as the parameters of overriding impurity for other offerings. Just as the Sages disputed with regard to other offerings whether impurity is “deferred” or “permitted,” so too they disputed with regard to the Paschal offering.

a.

If the community or the majority of the community became impure

before the Pesaḥ.

b.

Or if the priests—

who are needed to perform the offering for the entire community or for the majority of it—

were impure, and

even if

the community was pure,

they shall offer

the Paschal offering

in a state of impurity.

e. But if only

For we derive: An individual is deferred to the Second Pesaḥ, but the public is not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ.

c. If the majority of the community is impure and the minority is pure, even those who are pure need not take care to preserve their state of purity; rather, they may offer it in a state of impurity.

For when the Mishna says: “If the community or the majority of it became impure, they shall offer it in a state of impurity,” this also refers to those who are pure, as explained in the Gemara.

The reason is that we say: “A communal offering is not divided”; these people should offer it in a state of impurity and those people in a state of purity [Meiri; see the view of those who disagree in the note]

d. If all Israel, or the majority of them, were pure, but were forced to offer their Paschal offering in a state of impurity because all or the majority of the priests were impure, then even the minority of Israelites who are impure with ritual impurity of the body offer and eat the offering in a state of impurity, and they are not deferred to the Second Pesaḥ,

and the reason is explained in the beraita cited in the Gemara shortly: “A communal offering is not divided.” Since even those who are pure offer their offerings in a state of impurity [because of the impurity of the priests], the minority who are impure may also offer their offering with bodily impurity.

e. But if

only

a

minority of the community became impure—

then

those who are pure offer the

first Paschal offering,

and those who are impure offer the

second Paschal offering

on

the fourteenth of Iyar.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

If the Israelites were impure, while the priests and the sacred vessels were pure.

Or if the Israelites were pure, while the priests and the sacred vessels were impure.

And even

if

the Israelites and the priests were pure, and

only

the

sacred

vessels were impure [the Gemara explains this shortly].

They shall offer [even those who are impure through bodily impurity] their Paschal offering

like the corpse itself.

in a state of impurity,

And

because

a communal offering is not divided.

Rav Ḥisda said:

the priest holding it; consequently, even the impure owners are permitted to eat it in impurity. And this is because

They taught

in the beraita that since the sacred vessels became impure and the offering of the majority of Israel was performed in a state of impurity, even those who are impure are permitted to offer the Paschal offering and eat it in a state of impurity:

Only

in a case

where the knife became impure [

or another sacred vessel]

through contact with one who had become impure through contact with a corpse,

that is, the knife touched a person impure through contact with a corpse, who is a primary source of impurity [for only when the knife became impure through contact with one who had become impure through contact with a corpse does the priest holding it also become impure, and this is what permits the owners to eat the Paschal offering in a state of impurity, as the Gemara proceeds to explain].

For although it is established generally that if a vessel touches a primary source of impurity, it becomes impure with an impurity of a lesser degree than that of the source of impurity, and is only a first-degree source of impurity [which does not transmit impurity to a person], metal vessels [Rashi; and some say wooden vessels as well] that became impure through contact with a corpse or with someone who became impure through contact with a corpse are different: The vessels become impure with the same degree of impurity as the source that imparts the impurity.

And this is because

the Merciful One said: “As with the slain, so with the sword.”

This teaches you that a

sword [

or another metal vessel] that became impure through contact with a corpse

is like a corpse,

like the corpse itself.

The same law applies when metal vessels become impure through contact with one who became impure through contact with a corpse: They become impure with the same degree of impurity as the source that imparted the impurity.

And

if so,

the sacred vessel transmits impurity

to

the person,

the priest holding it; therefore, even owners who are impure are permitted to eat the Paschal offering in a state of impurity.

And this is because

initially [

at the beginning, when the offering was being performed]

when

the Paschal offering

was made, it was

in the

bodily impurity

of the priest,

which involves the punishment of excision [the Paschal offering was performed in the impurity of the priests, whose entering the Temple courtyard would involve excision were it not overridden]; and since this is so, it is permitted to eat it while the owners are impure, an impurity that likewise involves excision.

is “deferred”—

But if the knife became impure through impurity imparted by a creeping creature, [

that is, a creeping creature touched it, and although the creature is a primary source of impurity, a vessel that touches it becomes only a first-degree source of impurity and does not transmit impurity to a person,] it follows

that

the knife only

transmits impurity to the meat,

but

does not transmit impurity to the person [

only the Paschal meat becomes impure from the knife, while the priest holding it does not become impure]. In such a case, the law is:

The

owners who are pure may offer it,

but

those who are impure may not offer it.

The reason is that

it is preferable

that

the Paschal offering be eaten

with the

impurity of the meat,

which is

only a prohibition,

in general,

rather than have the meat be eaten with bodily impurity

of the owners who eat it,

which is punishable by excision.

And we explain Rav Ḥisda’s statement:

Apparently, Rav Ḥisda holds that impurity

is “deferred”

in the case of

с трудом

the public,

with difficulty, and is not fully permitted. Therefore, eating the Paschal offering while the owners are impure is permitted only when, without their impurity, the offering would still have been performed in a state of impurity punishable by excision.

For if you should conclude that impurity is “permitted” in the case of the public, we should say: Since it is impossible to offer the offerings of the majority of the public except in a state of impurity, even impurity of the meat, impurity has already been permitted with regard to this Paschal offering, and it should not matter through which type of impurity the individual performs it.

And necessarily, it is deferred, and therefore the individual was not permitted to perform it in ritual impurity, אלא if the majority of the public needed to defer impurity in that same matter which you are coming to permit for the individual.

And so Rabbi Isaac said: Ritual impurity is deferred for the public.

And Rava said:

Indeed, ritual impurity is deferred for the public, but nevertheless

even impure people too perform it

[even impure owners eat the Passover offering] when the service vessels became impure through impurity from a creeping creature, since the meat became impure and the prohibition against eating impure meat was deferred.

What is the reason?

For it is written: “And the meat that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire”.

And adjacent to it is

“And the meat, every

pure person shall eat meat”.

Behold, the eating of impure sacrificial meat was likened to the eating of sacrificial meat with impurity of the eater.

And we expound:

Wherever we can read in it

“And the meat that touches anything impure shall not be eaten,” we can read in it

also

“And the meat, every pure person shall eat meat”],

but not an impure person.

And

wherever we cannot read in it

“And the meat that touches anything impure shall not be eaten”—

such as in this Passover offering, in which the eating of impure meat was permitted—

we cannot read in it

“And the meat, every pure person shall eat meat”,

and the eating of meat with impurity of the eater was likewise permitted.

It was stated:

It was explained in the Mishna: If the congregation or the majority of it became impure, all Israel, including even the pure, shall perform it in impurity. We have thus learned that if the majority of Israel are impure, even the pure perform it in impurity.

But

if Israel were half pure and half impure,

the amoraim disputed it:

Rav said: Half-and-half is like a majority.

That is to say: both the half of Israel who are pure are like a majority of pure people, and the half of Israel who are impure are like a majority of impure people; as he explains and proceeds.

And Rav Kahana said: Half-and-half is not like a majority,

as he explains and proceeds.

And we explain:

Rav said: Half-and-half is like a majority,

and therefore:

These

pure people

perform it for themselves

in purity, and are forbidden to perform it together with the impure in impurity; for we judge the pure as a majority, and we do not say, “the communal offering is not divided,” to draw the majority of pure Israel after the impure.

And these

impure people

perform it for themselves

in impurity, the first Passover, for we likewise judge the impure as a majority, and the majority of Israel are not deferred to the second Passover, but perform it in impurity.

And Rav Kahana said: Half-and-half is not like a majority,

and therefore:

The pure perform the

Passover

first, and the impure

perform the

Passover

second,

since they are not like the majority of Israel, and are deferred to the second Passover.

There are those who say:

As for that which

Rav Kahana said: Half-and-half is not like a majority,

this is what he means:

The pure perform the

Passover

first.